No worries, Sindatur. I've been trying to be better at expressing myself on the message boards I visit. My apologies for coming off that way. I can assure you I am rarely, if ever, hostile or hurt.

This is a rare moment that I have started a thread and I'm still learning the ropes, even after all these years. I hope people come in and debate, agree and disagree about the posts I've put up because I find them interesting that they are similar in many respects to posts made here by those who have been disappointed with STiD, Abrams and the current state of Trek.

You think we've had it tough here? You should read what Trek fans are saying on other sites:

I feel constrained to tell you that Kirk's character was severely distorted in STiD. Even I, who liked the movie, can be objectively aware of that. His actions in the movie are perfect examples of characterization rape. The screenplay was written by a people who had to be sat down to watch Star Trek and had never watched it before. Abrams is NOT a fan of Star Trek. His professed love of the concept has always struck me as hypocrisy - He knows beans about James T. Kirk or how Kirk would act.... Look, it's a sad fact of life that from now on the 'public' Star Trek is JJ Abrams's show. He, in all his vast, omnipotent, well-meaning ignorance will do whatever the hell he wants to do with it and Kirk.

Click to expand...

Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting.

Click to expand...

STiD was created for the money ...big bucks and for the mass audience at large, and this is fine to a degree. But it neglected the most important factor... Roddenberry' s ideology.

Since when was Star Trek an ideology? The last time I checked, it was a television show and a series of movies. It would help if die-hard Abrams haters actually elaborated upon terms and phrases such as the 'philosophy of Trek' and 'Gene's vision'.

For what it's worth, I think that STID dealt with a lot of contemporary political and social issues, including the morality of preventative/preemptive war and unmanned drone strikes, the rights and wrongs of terrorism, and the security v liberty nexus.

Since when was Star Trek an ideology? The last time I checked, it was a television show and a series of movies. It would help if die-hard Abrams haters actually elaborated upon terms and phrases such as the 'philosophy of Trek' and 'Gene's vision'.

For what it's worth, I think that STID dealt with a lot of contemporary political and social issues, including the morality of preventative/preemptive war and unmanned drone strikes, the rights and wrongs of terrorism, and the security v liberty nexus.

Click to expand...

Apparently Trek became a religion shortly before Abrams took over, that's why his changes are treated like rebooting the Bible by some fans.

Also for what it's worth, I think that STID dealt with ideas that we should explain and was a lot more critical of our civilization than any other Trek movie or show has ever been. Usually they paint a guy white and black then use it as an example of how wrong and silly racism is and how Earth doesn't do that anymore. STID took the high and mighty Federation and showed them doing terrible things for the greater good.

We needed that because we see ourselves as the heroes, not the silly primitive aliens with funny foreheads. But we're doing some terrible things and we ignore it because we want to see ourselves as the heroes instead of the country that sends drones to kill people and wind up killing a lot of innocent people. That's not who we're supposed to be and we need to stop.

Gene Rodenberry was a visionary, no doubt about that. However, not every idea that he had was a good one, to pretend so is foolish. Gene wasn't a big fan of WOK from what I hear and that's widely considered to be the best Star Trek movie ever made. If we followed "Gene's vision" then DS9 would probably never have been made, and we certainly wouldn't have gotten the Dominion War. Gene never wanted significant conflicts amongst crew members, which is both boring and unrealistic. He was a great creator, but certainly not a perfect one.

Yes, he did, but lets not start a huge argument over this. Again the point is that when some fans claim that "Rodenberry would be rolling over in his grave" at JJ's Trek, I don't necessarily think that's true, or that JJ has to follow Gene's way of doing things.

I'm thankful that the other fandoms I'm in don't have ideologies, I wish Trek would drop it as well. Trek is a franchise with some good stories, that's about it. It isn't a guide map to our future or even realistic on any level.

I'm thankful that the other fandoms I'm in don't have ideologies, I wish Trek would drop it as well. Trek is a franchise with some good stories, that's about it. It isn't a guide map to our future or even realistic on any level.